fix_guidance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by adding "Never executes anything" — clarifying that the AWS CLI command is inert text rather than something run on the user's behalf — and "where known," which warns that the CLI command may be absent for some findings.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and return content, followed by the critical non-execution caveat. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here; annotations cover the safety profile. The only meaningful gap is not connecting finding_id to list_findings, which would have made the invocation path self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter, finding_id, is undocumented in the schema. The description only implies the parameter by saying "one finding" — it does not state the ID format or that it should come from list_findings. The self-explanatory parameter name keeps this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"How to fix one finding: the recommended action and, where known, the AWS CLI command" states a specific resource (a finding) and a specific output (remediation action plus CLI command). The intent is distinguishable from explain_finding in practice, though the description never names that sibling or says explicitly that it explains rather than remediates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when the user needs remediation steps rather than a diagnosis, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no routing against explain_finding or list_findings. It also doesn't say where the finding_id comes from, which matters for a tool that requires it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.